Prev: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???). Next: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

From: "John Lerchey" <lerchey@a...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:45:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

John,

I think that publishing (even if it's only PDF published) FT3 still has
merit.	It allows for a few things that just allowing folks to "house
rule" doesn't.

1) It makes it easier to introduce new space gamers into the fold.  It's
fine if you can find a group that already plays, but that's not always
the case.

2) It allows for many scattered components found in FT, MT, FB1, FB2,
and multiple web sites to be consolidated into one place.  I'll buy a
copy just for that.

3) It allows Jon to be the final arbiter of which version of some things
that are still in flux (figher rules?) and put out something that people
can use cross-group at cons or during visits or whatever.

Just another thought on it. :)

John

> 
> With all the full thrust gaming groups taking their rules off in
> different directions and the game essentially being open source for so
> long is there really any point in publishing new rules mechanisms?
> Different gaming groups have taken their version of the game and run
with
> it so it's not really one game any more but thousands of different
> versions.
> 
> John ----- 
John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Prev: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???). Next: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).